Seeking clarifiaction - The Prefixed Vav - Posted 2019

[kwrandolph]

So, the rabbis were used to a later Hebrew with different grammar. Fine, but does that mean that they were unable to examine the Tanakh's grammar and note differences and similarities?

How much did they study Tanakh? (Unanswerable question.) It took me at least five times reading Tanakh cover to cover before I came to the realization that the grammar rules that I had learned in class were not what I saw before me in the text.

They lived much closer in time to the Biblical authors.

Irrelevant. We’re talking about a thousand years, 30 generations, since Hebrew had ceased being a natively spoken language. They were just as much in the dark as we today.

That’s a longer time than between today and Chaucer. Even the much shorter time back to Shakespeare still leaves many modern people, myself included, often befuddled what Shakespeare meant.

So, Karl, you can interpret the Tanakh's grammar correctly but they couldn't?

The question is not could they, but did they?

Perhaps that is not what you're claiming. If so, apologies for misunderstanding you. But, it sure sounds that way. Surely, if you can look at BH grammar and see differences between how it expresses meaning and how your native language does, the rabbis were capable of doing the same.

My native tongue is English. My second language German. I could already see differences in language expression, even between close cognates as English and German. My third language was Norwegian. By then I was well aware to look for those differences. My fourth language… Only after that I studied Hebrew. I had no expectation that language expressions would be the same as my native tongue.

The rabbis came to the table with a distinct disadvantage—they were taught that the rabbinic Hebrew of the Talmud is the same as Biblical Hebrew. They didn’t look for those differences in expression.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

And, just so I'm clear on this, do you reject all of the Qere readings, or just some? If just some, what grounds do you use for acceptance or rejection? I have the impression you reject all, but maybe I misread you on that.

No manuscript is 100% without error. That’s why we compare different manuscripts. Having said that, I have found that the vast majority of Qere readings are inferior to Kethiv, and the rest are suspect.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Karl wrote:

So I decided to read Tanakh over and over again, letting the language flow over me in the same manner as a child learning his first language.

That is certainly the ideal. However, given your other statements as to your views and methods of Hebrew learning, I am puzzled as to how that could work in your case. You have stated, repeatedly, that the current systems of BH pronunciation, ALL OF THEM, are wrong, based only on "medieval Hebrew", and that the Biblical pronunciation is unknowable. If I understood you correctly it is impossible to even guess at or approximate it. Therefore, you presumably do not read the text aloud or listen much if any to recordings of it, since, after all, the traditional vocalization is unreliable.

A child learning his or her first language, on the other hand, does nothing at first but listen to it being spoken, then slowly, learns to speak it. Given your rejection of the various existing pronunciations, I cannot picture you trying to speak any BH conversationally either.

So, please enlighten us as to how that language flow works again?

For over 10 times I have read Tanakh silently, without pronunciation. I make no attempt of conversational BH. I read for meaning, understanding.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Karl,

HOW? Give me a demonstration using a few scriptures…

Kind regards
Chris watts

Try Proverbs 31:10–31. All the verbs there refer to present, continuous action. Is there a single translation that follows the grammar rules of Weingreen when translating that passage?

Karl W. Randolph.

1. My first reaction to this was : How does Weingreen compare with other well established grammar books? (By the way, I do not have Weingreen) Anyway......

Karl, Seriously? Is that the best you've got? Comparing a piece of prose with weingreen's grammar? Really? I was expecting a list of verses which demonstrated where the thoroughly inept Jewish grammarians failed in their task to present to us an accurate vowel pointing system. In other words, you copy and paste a piece of text, say from the Leningrad Codex, you then pick it to pieces by demonstrating where the vowels are wrong, or where the interpretation into English is faulty, or better still where the Medieval hebraist missed it all together?

Comparing a few verses with something Weingreen teaches is hardly supporting your case is it? Are you questioning a single 20th century Biblical scholar or the Masoretes and their grammars? I know you emphasize the latter, I think Weigreen is a side issue for you that you repeatedly mention in many posts, but for whatever opposing critical reasonings you may have against his Grammar, this is hardly the main issue is it?

So far - the Prosecution's case against the Masoretes is thrown out unless you can present new evidence that has nothing to do with a 20th century scholar! In the aforementioned argument they are redundant issues regarding the thrust of your main complaint, which involve the Masoretes and the Medieval grammars and the misinterpretation of scripture as a result of their alleged ineptitude.


Chris watts

[talmid56]

Karl wrote:

How much did they study Tanakh? (Unanswerable question.) It took me at least five times reading Tanakh cover to cover before I came to the realization that the grammar rules that I had learned in class were not what I saw before me in the text.

I personally have not read the rabbis, but have encountered quotes from their works. There is a lot of rabbinical literature. The Talmud alone in print editions takes up numerous volumes, like a set of encyclopedias. There are also, I understand, several rabbinic commentaries written on the Bible. And in the Talmud, there are numerous discussions about the meaning of various Bible passages. At least, that is stated in some introductory material on the Talmud that I have read.

In reading general works that refer to the rabbinical writings, the impression is given that the rabbis made the study of Tanakh their main purpose in life, followed by their composition and then study of the Talmud. if this is true (and I have no reason to think otherwise), then they studied the Tanakh quite thoroughly. I do not know if the Masoretes were all rabbis. I expect many were, as were many of those who produced our major medieval OT manuscripts such as the Aleppo Codex and Leningradensis.

As for your claim that Hebrew ceased to be a living language a millennium or more before the Masoretes began their work, many scholars do not agree with you. They state, based on documentary evidence from inscriptions and papyri, that it is likely that Hebrew continued in force as a vernacular until approximately A.D. 300. If this is correct, then the earlier Masoretes were removed only a couple of centuries, at best, from that atmosphere. Yes, the language had changed from Biblical Hebrew. No one disputes this. But, it was still Hebrew.

I am sure you will not agree with this analogy, Karl, but I'll put it out anyway. The case is similar to a modern day student/scholar learning modern Spanish and then learning to read Old Spanish (roughly A.D. 700 to about 1600). I did this myself. Although there are significant differences in Old Spanish compared to modern, the modern language served as a bridge to the old. Similarly, my previous study of French and Spanish served as bridges to my study of Latin.

Even if you are right and Hebrew was no longer a natively spoken language after the exile, the bridge effect could still work.

[talmid56]

I agree we need to practice judicious Biblical textual criticism. And, I agree that some of the Qere readings are wrong. I find it hard to believe, however, that the majority of them are. Are you familiar with the Biblia Mirecurensia Hebrew Bible?

[Jason Hare]

Try Proverbs 31:10–31. All the verbs there refer to present, continuous action. Is there a single translation that follows the grammar rules of Weingreen when translating that passage?

Karl W. Randolph.

Could you provide a section from Weingreen that discusses poetry and sets out a rule that is violated by these verses?

[kwrandolph]

In reading general works that refer to the rabbinical writings, the impression is given that the rabbis made the study of Tanakh their main purpose in life, followed by their composition and then study of the Talmud.

I have had interactions with rabbis over the years, and what I got from them is that the study of Talmud their main focus of study, Tanakh comes in second.

As for your claim that Hebrew ceased to be a living language a millennium or more before the Masoretes began their work, many scholars do not agree with you.

According to their definition of a “living language”, Latin is still a living language. What I wrote is a “non-natively spoken” language. Ezra and Nehemiah give evidence that that was already the case in their day. Probably already the case a couple of generations before them.

Even if you are right and Hebrew was no longer a natively spoken language after the exile, the bridge effect could still work.

In the same manner that modern English can be the bridge to Shakespearean English. But unless there’s a guide pointing to the differences, a person who knows only modern English can be baffled by many of the passages.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Hallo Karl,

HOW? Give me a demonstration using a few scriptures…

Kind regards
Chris watts

Try Proverbs 31:10–31. All the verbs there refer to present, continuous action. Is there a single translation that follows the grammar rules of Weingreen when translating that passage?

Karl W. Randolph.

1. My first reaction to this was : How does Weingreen compare with other well established grammar books? (By the way, I do not have Weingreen) Anyway......

My understanding is that he is pretty mainstream.

Karl, Seriously? Is that the best you've got?

That passage has a mixture of Qatals and Yiqtols, even Waw-prefixed Yiqtols, and they all refer to present, continuous time. That’s not what I was taught in class using Weingreen.

So far - the Prosecution's case against the Masoretes…

As for the Masoretes, many times their points indicate a different meaning than the consonantal text. Other times they are just plain wrong. I have stopped looking at their points a long time ago so I can no longer off the top of my head give examples of what I speak, other than a couple of places.

Chris watts

Karl W. Randolph.